The unordered elements of the above "map" are those listed in the following table. These clearly invite refinement although weaknesses do not invalidate the possible integrative value of this approach. Indeed its very simplicity is an invitation to such refinement.

These items can now be distributed into a new version of the "map" such as to highlight these tentative relationships for mnemonic purposes. The numbering of the items is as before. In both the above tables and the map there is no immediate effort to stress cause/effect relationships between the functions. The implication is rather that the elements in the sets (whether in rows or columns) have a degree of "co-dependency" -- perhaps to be understood as a "resonant mutuality".

Comment

This tentative mapping exercise is a further effort to highlight what is typically designed out of political and academic agendas. The result presented is probably less significant than the approach and the opportunity that it offers to others to identify core issues which tend to get designed off the agenda -- and to explore their interrelationships. In other words it can be understood as an exploration of patterning to elicit significance. The clusters identified above can be refined, reframed and alternatives substituted. The attribution to rows and columns can be variously rethought, as with the relative positions of the rows and/or the columns -- somewhat as with the challenge of a Rubik's Cube.

How did we become so many? How large a number can our Earth sustain? These are important questions, but perhaps not the right ones for our times. When we look only at the big number, we risk being overwhelmed and losing sight of new opportunities to make life better for everyone in the future. So instead of asking questions like, "Are we too many?" we should instead be asking, "What can I do to make our world better?" or, "What can we do to transform our growing cities into forces for sustainability?"

This report makes the case that with planning and the right investments in people now-to empower them to make choices that are not only good for themselves but for our global commons-our world of 7 billion can have thriving, sustainable cities, productive labour forces that can fuel economic growth, youth populations that contribute to the well-being of economies and societies, and a generation of older people who are healthy and actively engaged in the social and economic affairs of their communities....

Our record population size can be viewed in many ways as a success for humanity: People are living longer, healthier lives...

In many parts of the developing world, where population growth is outpacing economic growth, the need for reproductive health services, especially family planning, remains great. The attainment of a stable population is a sine qua non for accelerated, planned economic growth and development.

. The report skillfully avoids addressing the dynamics which inhibit the decision-making and investment of the kind it assumes should be forthcoming in the light of its arguments. This highlighted by the fact that the last UN International Conference on Population and Development was held in 1994, and no other is planned. None of those seeking to keep "population" off the international agenda could fail to appreciate the bland nature of the document.

Promoting systematic ignorance: The report is necessarily unable to highlight or address the problematic issues surrounding "population" and the complex of dynamics which prevent the matter being debated effectively -- or even mapping out the positions and the arguments which prevent the emergence of new understandings. The focus is on "safe" estimates of demographic estimates and assumptions relating to reduction in fertility despite its acknowledgement:

But despite global fertility declines, about 80 million people are added to the world each year, a number roughly equivalent to the population of Germany or Ethiopia.

The blithe naivety with which addition of 80 million a year to the world population is considered is evident in the debate and criticism regarding the historic summit on the European sovereign debt crisis (Brussels, October 2011) to "save Greece", to "save Europe" and to "save the world economy". Despite evident inability to foresee or manage an emerging global crisis over the previous decade, it is readily assumed that the strategic skills will be adequate to the challenges of the cumulative addition of such numbers (Ungovernability of Sustainable Global Democracy ? Towards engaging appropriately with time, 2011).

Asystemic analysis: Under the headings Words are cheap...but trust is nowhere to be found, The Economist leader comments on the European Summit (Economic Crisis: Europe's Rescue Plan, 29 October 2011):

Yet in the light of day, the holes in the rescue plan are plain to see. The scheme is confused and unconvincing. Confused, because its financial engineering is too clever by half and vulnerable to unintended consequences. Unconvincing, because too many details are missing and the scheme at its core is not up to the job of safeguarding the euro.... As it is, this deal at best fails to solve the euro crisis; at worst it may even make it worse. As the shortcomings of each component become clear, investors' fears will surely return, bond yields will rise and banks' funding problems will worsen. Yet again, disaster will loom.

The issue of unchecked population increase is never mentioned in relation to the European sovereign debt crisis -- or to other current global crises -- except by inference and euphemism ("increasing demand") in the face of shortage of resources, rising unemployment, human impact on the environment, breakdown of social security systems, and the like. And yet each of these pressures increases annually, thereby exacerbating the instability of the global system and undermining the possibility of effective governance.

Naively it would seem, the government of every nation focuses on the means by which it will ensure increased competitiveness to survive the economic crises of the future -- ignoring the fact that competitive success necessarily implies competitive losers who must seek other means to survive in a highly competitive environment, whether or not those "means" follow the rules of the game in which they have lost. At the time of writing, the World Economic Forum and OECD have launched the Arab World Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. This notes that 25 million new jobs will be required over the next decade in the region to maintain current unemployment levels. Simultaneously, the International Labour Organisation predicts a requirment for 80 million jobs worldwide in the next two years to return to pre-crisis employment rates (World of Work Report 2011). However it recognizes that the recent slowdown in growth suggests that the world economy is likely to create only half of the jobs needed -- with the predictable consequences for social unrest.

The challenge of population increase is readily and conveniently ignored by all authorities -- as exemplified by the UNFPA report. Curiously simulations of the systemic interdependencies (and the manner in which they are ignored or reframed) -- with a view to envisaging, communicating and testing possible remedies -- are themselves deprecated. This has been noted with respect to the Club of Rome infinitive by Graham Turner (A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality, CSIRO, 2007).

The "blinkering" of strategic analysis is never factored into policy formulation, as some have variously noted (Karen A. Cerulo, Never Saw It Coming: cultural challenges to envisioning the worst, 2006; Joshua Cooper Ramo, The Age of the Unthinkable: why the New World Disorder constantly surprises us and what we can do about it, 2009; Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable, 2007).